PDA

View Full Version : What's the proper response when the AG perjures himself before Congress?


Slider
July 26th, 2007, 09:08 AM
Maybe, finally, we'll get the first of what should be a paarade of impeachment hearings.

Slider

Gonzales testimony about 2004 meeting under scrutiny
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ Senate testimony Tuesday about a 2004 meeting with congressional leaders over a disputed intelligence program is under increasing scrutiny because of a memo that appears to contradict what he said under oath about what prompted the meeting.

Under questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said that on March 10, 2004 — when he was White House counsel — he and other officials met at the White House with eight top congressional leaders after Deputy Attorney General James Comey refused to approve “continuation of a very important intelligence activity.”

In his testimony, Gonzales refused to discuss what that the intelligence activity was, but he testified the dispute with Comey that prompted the meeting — and a subsequent visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in his hospital bed — was not over a controversial program to monitor communications with terror suspects overseas without warrants.

At the time, Comey was in charge of the Justice Department because Ashcroft was seriously ill.

However, the White House meeting appears on a list of briefings about the terrorist surveillance program provided to Congress by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte in 2006.


Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Wednesday night that while he was aware of the Negroponte memo, Gonzales “stands by his testimony.”

According to the list compiled by Negroponte’s office, other attendees at the meeting included then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, along with Nancy Pelosi, who was then minority leader in the House and is now speaker. The intelligence committee members included Reps. Porter Goss and Jane Harman and Sens. Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller.

President Bush publicly revealed the terrorist surveillance program in December 2005, insisting that it was both legal and a necessary tool in the war on terror. But critics have denounced the surveillance as an assault on civil liberties and challenged its legality.

Gonzales said that after Comey objected to reauthorizing undisclosed “intelligence activity,” House and Senate leaders from both parties, as well as members of each chamber’s intelligence committee, were summoned to the White House for a meeting in the situation room.

“We informed the leadership that Mr. Comey felt the president did not have the authority to authorize these activities, and we were there asking for help, to ask for emergency legislation,” Gonzales said.

At the meeting, a consensus developed that “it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program, but that we should look for a way ahead,” he said.

So that evening, Gonzales said he and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card visited Ashcroft in the hospital because “we felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership.”

Comey, who was in the hospital room that night, previously testified that he thought Card and Ashcroft were trying to “take advantage” of an ill Ashcroft. However, Ashcroft refused to overrule Comey’s decision.

Pressed by clearly skeptical senators Tuesday, Gonzales asserted several times that the dispute that led to the congressional meeting and the trip to Ashcroft’s hospital bed was not over the terrorist surveillance program.

“The disagreement that occurred, and the reason for the visit to the hospital … was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people,” Gonzales said.

“Mr. Attorney General, do you expect us to believe that?” replied Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee’s ranking Republican.

Gonzales’ veracity during previous testimony has been called into question by senators, particularly his assertion that there was no internal dissent within the Justice Department over reauthorizing the terrorist surveillance program. Comey testified some top-ranking officials were prepared to resign over the dispute.

Gonzales sought to bolster the credibility of his previous testimony Tuesday by asserting that Comey’s objections dealt with other intelligence activities. But because those activities are highly classified, it is impossible to know what they were or what, if any, relationship they might have to the terrorist surveillance program

off piste
July 27th, 2007, 04:18 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5003953.html

uly 26, 2007, 9:02PM
Gonzales not sweating latest probe
By JULIE MASON
Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau



A casual observer could be forgiven for suspecting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is getting deeper into trouble with overlapping investigations of his agency and, on Thursday, calls for a special prosecutor to probe his honesty.
But the Texan's sometimes breezy demeanor at the latest round of hearings this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee told the whole tale: He's not sweating it, and why should he?
President Bush is equal parts loyal to his longtime aide and stubbornly unyielding against pressure to fire him. Gonzales doesn't even look worried anymore.
"There have been all these hearings on the attorney general and yet nobody has really laid a glove on him," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "It is as if they keep throwing mud against the wall, hoping something is going to stick."
Senate Democrats want Solicitor General Paul Clement to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales perjured himself in at least three instances on Capitol Hill.
It's the latest salvo in a dispute that appears heading to a constitutional showdown between Congress and the White House over the firing of U.S. attorneys and the administration's handling of the anti-terrorist surveillance program.
As it stands, Gonzales has few defenders left on Capitol Hill, and successive appearances to answer questions in the Hydra-headed congressional probes of the Justice Department have done nothing to improve his standing.
"Our hearing two days ago was devastating," Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Gonzales' appearance before the panel. "But so was the hearing before that, and so was the hearing before that."
Critics of Gonzales, including Senate Democrats, claim Bush's unwavering support for the attorney general has effectively paralyzed the Justice Department.
John Fortier, a political scholar at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said hindsight shows Bush might have been better served by nominating a more independent attorney general to succeed John Ashcroft, who stepped down in 2004.
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Gonzales "are two people who spent their careers in service to Bush," Fortier said.
By contrast, current White House Counsel Fred Fielding, a Washington insider who is not beholden to Bush, has the freedom to give advice without fear or favor, he said.
One unintended consequence of the Gonzales saga, Fortier said, has been a generally positive re-evaluation of Ashcroft, who left office under a somewhat dubious cloud for his management of the department and oversight of war-on-terrorism programs.
For an inside-the-Beltway dispute, the Gonzales matter has proved durable fodder for late-night comedians — a sure sign of an issue's foothold in the popular consciousness.
Said the Tonight Show's Jay Leno: "I got myself a new computer this week. I got the Alberto Gonzales Dell computer. Have you seen this one? It destroys your e-mails and has no memory."

Slider
July 27th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Straight out lying to Congress is not the same as "I forgot." This one is different, since you can't paint it grey.

Slider

off piste
July 27th, 2007, 06:07 PM
I'm sure you're right.........

off piste
August 1st, 2007, 07:23 PM
Wow, this story sure withered away into nothingness.

Slider
August 30th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Want to reconsider?

Slider

off piste
August 30th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Reconcider what? Doesn't seem like a huge media storm to me. More like a little footnote in the background compared to all the rest of the news. Hell, the work "Gozales" isn't even anywhere to be seen on the Google News front page.

Slider
August 31st, 2007, 09:13 AM
I can't imagine how you missed it in every paper on page one. Did you hear that he resigned?

Here's more from yesterday's Times. The Justice Department is now investigating Gonzales. Very interesting.

Slider

August 31, 2007
Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog disclosed Thursday that he was investigating whether sworn statements to Congress by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales were “intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.”

The disclosure, by Glenn A. Fine, the department’s inspector general, came in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the first official confirmation that Mr. Gonzales was under investigation within the executive branch over the truthfulness of his testimony. The committee’s chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, had requested the inquiry this month.

For weeks, lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether Mr. Gonzales told the truth in sworn statements to Congress on a number of issues, including his involvement in efforts to preserve the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without warrants, as well as his role in last year’s dismissals of several United States attorneys for what appeared to be political reasons.

It was not clear if the investigation by the inspector general was tied to Mr. Gonzales’s announcement on Monday that he was resigning from the Justice Department, effective next month. He has offered no details for the reasoning behind his resignation or its timing, and his announcement caught top aides by surprise.

A spokesman for Mr. Gonzales, Erik Ablin, said Thursday that the attorney general had no immediate comment on the inquiry. Nor would Mr. Ablin address the specific accusations of possible false statements by Mr. Gonzales that have been cited by Senator Leahy and other Democrats.

Mr. Gonzales has insisted that he has always tried to be truthful in his Congressional testimony. After his honesty was repeatedly challenged at a Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Mr. Gonzales declared, “The attorney general of the United States should try to meet the highest standard, and I have tried to meet that standard.”

Mr. Fine’s letter gives no suggestion that he has evidence to show that Mr. Gonzales has made false statements. It does show that Mr. Fine, who has broad discretion to choose what issues to investigate, does not reject the questions about the attorney general’s truthfulness out of hand and will continue to look into them after Mr. Gonzales leaves the department.

Congressional officials said it would have been unusual for Mr. Fine to refuse to investigate, given the interest of Senator Leahy and other powerful lawmakers.

Mr. Gonzales was already known to be a focus of investigations by Mr. Fine into the propriety of the Justice Department’s involvement in the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and the firing of United States attorneys last year.

The inspector general’s office does not have the ability to bring criminal charges. If Mr. Fine finds credible evidence of perjury or other wrongdoing by Mr. Gonzales or his senior aides, precedent indicates that he will refer the information to criminal prosecutors, possibly at the quasi-independent public integrity division of the Justice Department.

The White House said Thursday that it was continuing to weigh candidates to succeed Mr. Gonzales and was unlikely to announce a nominee until after President Bush travels to Australia for a meeting next week with government leaders from Asia and the Pacific. He is scheduled to return on Sept. 9.

In a letter to Mr. Fine on Aug. 16, Senator Leahy formally requested that the inspector general’s office open an investigation of possible perjury by Mr. Gonzales.

In his letter on Thursday responding to the senator, Mr. Fine wrote that he had “ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the attorney general’s testimony that you identified” and that “we believe that through those investigations and other O.I.G. reviews, we will be able to assess most of the issues that you raise.”

Mr. Fine noted that Senator Leahy had requested an inquiry into whether “statements made by the attorney general were intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.” The inspector general offered no timeline for the inquiry.

Mr. Leahy said in a statement he welcomed Mr. Fine’s decision to investigate. “It is appropriate that the inspector general will determine whether the attorney general was honest with this and other Congressional committees,” he said.

Several other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made a separate request this summer to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement to appoint an independent prosecutor to review perjury accusations against the attorney general.

Mr. Clement has not publicly replied to their request, and he may now be able to cite the newly disclosed inspector general’s investigation in arguing against the need for an independent counsel for now. The White House announced this week that after Mr. Gonzales’s departure, Mr. Clement will serve as acting attorney general until a new one is confirmed by the Senate.

off piste
August 31st, 2007, 12:20 PM
I saw it quite clearly. What you miss is how much of an anti-climax this story is except to the Obsessed. The majority of people in this country know how corrupt and sick the Republican and Democratic parties are, and expect this stuff. We'll only see stuff like this until America wakes up and throws the Big Two out. Think you've seen an attack on the Constitution now? Wait until the Dems control it all (like there's any difference).

Unbreakable
August 31st, 2007, 01:21 PM
I saw it quite clearly. What you miss is how much of an anti-climax this story is except to the Obsessed. The majority of people in this country know how corrupt and sick the Republican and Democratic parties are, and expect this stuff. We'll only see stuff like this until America wakes up and throws the Big Two out. Think you've seen an attack on the Constitution now? Wait until the Dems control it all (like there's any difference).

Amen

Slider
August 31st, 2007, 02:56 PM
Sorry, but there's no comparison in the corruption level between the two. I'm not saying there won't be, but it isn't the two party system, just the human condition.

In the case of the here and now, the scum are starting to pay the price. IF something similar happens once the voters speak next time around, I'll be with you. But for now, you're pissing in the wind, with disillusionment being your only motivator.

The process is working about as effectively as can be expected.

Slider